tv Washington Journal Representative Louie Gohmert R-TX CSPAN March 29, 2017 8:06am-8:41am EDT
they want to test it out in california's soil and climate. chico asly used rancho one of their early experimental farms before they actually owned and ran their own. >> on sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv, we visit the california state university farm. >> it is the number one industry in california yet and we are the number one state in the nation in terms of agriculture. there are 23 campuses, but only four of them have agriculture. chico represents the northern part of the state, but we draw students from all over california to get experience in agriculture itself. >> we will also go inside the chico museum to see the historic chinese altar from the 1880 chico chinese temple. watch c-span cities tour of chico, california saturday at noon eastern on c-span twos book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00
p.m. on american history tv on c-span3. working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: we have at our table again this morning, louie gohmert, republican of texas, here to talk about the health care legislation. floorit was pulled on the on friday, the president had a few things to say on twitter i would like you to respond to. "democrats are smiling and d.c. caucus has saved planned parenthood and obamacare." after some of the bad years, they were ready for a win. guest: i'm not one who said the president needs to stop tweeting. i think it's great.
i think it helps him go straight to the people, but with that tweet, he helped prove the rule that nobody is perfect. president --or any and chuck colson pointed it out back in the nixon administration, businessman tally of we versus they -- there becomes this mentality of we versus they. and it becomes sentimental. i free she comments from the president on monday. -- appreciated the comments from the president on monday. he was more presidential and sounded more presidential on monday when i've seen. from what i have understood, he had not been allowed to know people in his own party where against the bill. everybody who supported it loved
it, but it was quite a shock. he wanted to get to the bottom of it. he invited all the groups over on wednesday the week before and was shocked to find out people don't like this bill. there's a lot of problems. i know a lot of people said we were recalcitrant and the freedom caucus. -- in the freedom caucus. when we hearwas that this is going to likely lot rates go up and go up a , but if we give the health and human services enough power, they can bring them down. problem with addressing the problem of too much power in the federal government by giving them more power. i've great faith in my friend, tom price. he and i got elected to congress at the same time and we work arm in arm on many things. he will be fantastic as secretary. if we give them enough power, he can create the high risk pools
at the federal level and eventually someday we will devolve them back to the states. i'm sorry. i don't want to give more power to the federal government. when i hear that a bill is going to likely cause rates to go up for a while, my constituents can't stand higher rates. friend anddoctor it's kind of like when people got upset back home. you should have gotten behind the wall street bailout. it was a disaster. it was wrong. newt gingrich was exactly right when he said in the last couple of days that if this vote had friday, with the 17% approval rating of the bill, lower than obamacare had, it would've been an absolute disaster for the republican party. i'm not expecting anybody in our party to say thank you, louie.
they will continue to be mad, but ultimately the bottom line is, now we have a chance to sit and talk. greta come yesterday, you have been flying all around the capital. paul ryan, steve scalise, they were everywhere. they were talking to everybody. now tell me specifically what issues you had. that's what we are looking for. that is how you make bad bills better. we agreed with the president. buthought we had a deal, then republican leadership would come in and say you can't do that. the number one thing we were looking for -- we will hold our nose and vote for some of these bad provisions if we can just be certain the premiums are coming down. people can't stand our premiums right now. host: does that go to the part of the affordable care act with
essential health benefits? did you want to get rid of those in the premiums would come down? is that your argument? guest: we were taking information from democratic strategists and republican strategist, but analysts that actually reviewed the information and said based on history this is what we would expect would happen. there were two components that we did not want to remove, and we agreed with the president. touch not going to the part under title i regarding pre-existing conditions and we are not going to touch the part of if you are 26 and under a living with your parents, you can be on your parents health insurance. back when this came up in 2009 and 2010, most republicans said let's see some of the things we can do in a bipartisan way. a lot of people have been screwed over by things with pre-existing conditions.
if you are living at home, you ought to be on your family's health insurance. me, if you areo living with your parents, you ought to be on a family policy. there shouldn't be in age research and. restriction. there were other mandatory provisions. if somebody is 70 years old, they should not have to pay for an ob/gyn. there are a lot of things mandated that should not have been there. that was one of the ways we were looking at trying to bring the premiums down. host: was that the sticking point? guest: it wasn't a sticking point between the freedom caucus and the president. twice we came to an agreement and it's kind of nice to hear a president said, ok, i'm going to call the speaker. we have a deal. i will tell him to put it back in their and our leadership involved will say, you can do that.
it will destroy the deal on the senate. we think it might be fatal. it turns out like mike lee found that it was not fatal. it would not have been a problem. i think the president is right to back off, because he gave an incredible effort, but now it's up to us. there is a lot of movement in the republican party. greta, i was reminded last night as i was reflecting. september orin october, tom delay had to step down from leadership. it was one of the more touching comments i've ever heard at a conference. he got up and said, "guys, now that i've stepped out of a bunch of i owe you guys an apology.
a month or so, a bunch of you guys protested. our party had a news conference and said we were spending too much money. i called a most frustrated and angry. i realized that used to be me. i used to be the one calling for that. i hope you forgive me." once you get in a leadership things about the principle that you used to stand on become less important to you as t218. right now, it is 216 because we have four empty seats. whenink i have to get -- you think i have to get this bill passed, h we sometimes forget about what used the fussed about. host: peter, republican. caller: congressman, you are one of my favorite congressmen. guest: thank you. caller: unfortunately i'm stuck
with nita lowey. understand isn't why didn't paul ryan put together a bill that he knew was going to pass in the house? he was trying to accommodate mitch mcconnell, which to me i thought was crazy. you guys should just put together the best bill you possibly can and send it to the senate and let mitch mcconnell worry about it. senator mcconnell is saying that he is willing to use the nuclear option and get rid of the filibuster to pass gorsuch for the supreme court. why don't you guys get rid of the filibuster altogether? you never had more than 55 senators. if you guys can't pass any legislation, you are not going to be a majority anyway. host: i want to take your point with the congressman. roll call has the story that rank-and-file might go around speaker of the house paul ryan.
is that what the freedom caucus is doing? guest: we have reached out. the more moderate republicans in the tuesday group, i will continue to say from what i know about -- and we had this discussion in conference yesterday. i havethat w absolutely no question every guy in the tuesday group, their number one motivation is trying to help their constituents. if we do not have to have intermediaries and we could sit down in a room -- and frankly there were many republican members saying, look, let's get all those with problems in a room and work it out. we did that three years ago on a border security bill. people got up and conference and said, look, let's not go home now. let's get everybody in a room with an issue and work it out. we did and we all voted for the bill before it was late friday night.
that we need to just took around and go ahead and work together to get it done. i think you will see that happen. as i used to see with speaker boehner, when we would get members of our conference together and work together, eventually you can leave the leaders into doing the right thing. ,egarding peter's point though i'm glad he is paying so much attention. that's fantastic. i would love to have peter as a statuette\/\ constituent. he brings up a great point and one that has been bothering me ever since we have been a majority. we keep being told we need to pass a bill in the house that we think will get through the senate. we keep compromising before we pass our bill and send it to the sen senate. there is an issue on this part because it's not the normal process. reconciliatione
and it has to have a relationship with the budget. we have been told over and over that the bird world may cause a problem. -- the bird rule may cause a problem. the most important word in there it's got to be material. word --the operative incidental effect on the budget. who makes that decision? clearly it's not a numerical number. is it more incidental to get to the point of material? is it just barely incidental? that's a judgment call. who makes that call? mike pence can sit in the seat and make that call. we cap being told that the parliamentarian will rule. parliamentarian in the house and the senate will both tell you this is what we think, but keep in mind -- we don't rule.
it is the person in the chair. what happens if we took our bill just the way it was? we all felt it was material to the budget. you bring down the premiums, you bring down the cost, and it dramatically affects the budget. certainly it's material. it also has to be an issue in the jurisdiction of the committees that handle the reconciliation bill. that's another. pence would hear it and a democrat would object it. they believe it would be stricken and say it was fatal. then mike pence would hear from the parliamentarian and he makes the call. if he decides, as i certainly think he should, that it is material and not just incidental to the budget, then a democrat can jump up -- actually anybody can jump up and say i appeal the ruling of the chair. in which case, you would
normally have a republican stand up and say, i moved to table the ruling of the appeal of the chair. you have a vote on that and it's not debatable except a motion to adjourn. appeal. on tabling the if you have got the majority, you're going to win on the tabling of the appeal. so it does go through. just like peter was hoping, we sent a good bill down there. believe every reason to it should go through and the vice president should rule it in order. host: let us hear from rich in ohio. caller: good morning. representative, you seem like a pretty decent individual. i would like to tell you a little short story. and this really bothers me. i'm a fairly well-to-do individual, so this doesn't affect me a whole lot, ok? but my neighbor is a struggling individual. $30,000 to makes
$40,000 a year. he works two jobs and has a wife and three children. now he was getting health care through obamacare and he was getting subsidies to help him pay for that health care. obviously for the first time in his life. under the republican plan, he was going to lose almost all the subsidies and he would no longer be able to afford health insurance for his family and himself. now me, i'm going to get a tax cut. under the health care plan. can you, as a republican, tell me that is morally right? guest: well, i'm not sure that morality comes into play. it doesn't seem fair. it doesn't seem fair. in fact, i know there was disagreement, but it looked to me like the people -- and this was from people i trusted -- they said that people would get hammered the most under the republican bill would be 50-64.
those are the age groups where most of those voted for trump. people areide, these really getting hammered and you don't need to get hammered worse. i agree with you. it is a problem if you cut subsidies and the costs stay at their current level. everybody in the freedom caucus was so adamant. we have got to bring costs down. people can't afford this. -- why givei had is people subsidies to turn around and give to the insurance companies? a lot of them have gotten in deep financial trouble, but rich, if you will look, the very top insurance companies have been doing really well. i don't think we need to pay people subsidies to pay to the insurance companies. i think we bring the premiums down. one thing i was surprised didn't make much is at all was a bill
that we passed that was extremely bipartisan. the truth is democrats have been for passage of what i'm about to tell you. it is to end the exemption for health insurance companies from the antitrust laws. with being exempt from antitrust laws, the insurance companies, the biggest could go to a hospital or doctor and say we are the big guys and we have 80-90% and we basically have a monopoly in the state. you are going to be in our network unless you decide to take insurance from one of these startup entrepreneurial companies, in which case we will drop you from the network. that violates antitrust. we don't like those things in america, but they have been able to do it. was a crysday, there across the conference and i appreciate our speaker bring it to the floor.
votes --with over 400 you probably didn't hear it. this was bipartisan to end the exemption for help insurance companies from antitrust laws. i know people on both sides say competition is a good thing, but when you allow people to engage in monopolistic practices, they become monopolies. have heard most of us say it would be helpful to buy insurance across state lines. i think it probably would for a lot of people, but let's face it. atyou have market problems work, californians can buy from texas because policies are cheaper, then claims would be higher in california and premiums would go up to cover. texas rates go up in california would go down. the best thing we could do is what the house did last week. that was end the exemption. now we have to get the senate to do that. doing those things and then encouraging entrepreneurial
insurance companies and fit niches for certain people, we can get competition. one thing that will get a competitive and bring the rates down and is very important and it was in the bill i filed back in 2009. ,very health care provider everybody has to post what costs are. you get a bill that says you have a $120,000 bill. no ensure company is going to pay $120,000. if people come in and can't afford insurance, they ought to be able to pay what blue cross does. we need to force the posting of cost and then we get market forces back at work. premiums sown the dramatically you don't need the subsidies anymore. i have another problem with the tax credit in the bill. we were demanding before you get the tax credit, you ought to have to prove that you are legally in this country.
you wills tax credit, be able to receive more money back then you put in in many cases. well, we think the transfer of wealth from the people that are struggling and paying their taxes to people who aren't paying any taxes through this bill is not the way we should go. we should end the tax credit unless you are legally here. just bring down the cost. that is what we really want to do. host: paul in maine, independent. caller: i think one of the things you are going at this health care business -- the number one thing is to make sure people have good health. there was a report from john the thirdying that largest cause of death in the united states is the health care system itself. do you know congressman posey? guest: yes, very well. caller: do you know he had tried to get people to investigate the cdc?
do you people down there at the --gress have done nothing you people down there the congress have done nothing. offered 100 thousand dollars if anybody can prove that since her safe. do isrst thing you should pass legislation that gets rid of exempting those vaccines from prosecution. host: paul, we will take your point about the health care industry. let me hear from tom in princeton, new jersey. you can respond to both. caller: greta, thank you for taking my call. good morning. you are one of my favorite republicans also on the help you ill. however, i have to completely disagree with your choice to go against this. i've a feeling unfortunately this may be the only chance the republicans have to show the voters that they can completely repeal and get rid of obamacare.
order to lower the premiums, the mandate has to be gone. then the insurance companies will adjust their premiums accordingly weather is no demand -- when there is no demand. this is probably the only chance. this is just a slim margin between the republicans and democrats in the house. by the time republicans come back, they may lose that chance and may lose the house. i wanted to see if you felt that same way regarding that. host: it's an argument the speaker made. guest: i appreciate the speakers point and i appreciate your point. i know there were a lot of people who panicked across the country. just vote for it. we may not have another chance . we already had were that the senate was not taking up this bill until probably mid-may.
we had plenty of time. there was no reason we had to ram through on an artificial timeline last friday before more people understood what was involved. the problem -- you said this was our only chance to get the complete repeal. this was not a complete repeal. i was willing and most of us were to hold our nose and go ahead and vote for it. we reached an agreement with the president, but when they kept pulling back the provisions that would dramatically decrease premium cost, we can't do that to people. we can't pass this bill. i do disagree with you on one thing. you set eliminate the mandates. you said that would get things to come down. there is no question that pretty much everybody around here understood. cbo, as wrong as they are with the margin of error around obamacare, they are not accurate. they are not all that helpful,
but the point was being made it's not a complete repeal. when you eliminate the mail and mandate, there will be millions of people who drop it because they are getting no amendmen benefit. makingat high deductible $30,000 or $40,000, they will never have the money to pay the tw adoptable. -- the deductible. they will drop their insurance because it was more of a tax that anything. i agree. the time is now. we need to do it now. but to pass a bill that was going to bring up premium rates, my concern was the premium rates and hurting people and not growing the government could i . i trust tom price. i do. the answer is not giving health and human services more power. high riskd create pools in the state, i agree that's great.
then we can bring down the cost. when you take care of the folks that are high risk and cost a lot of money, than everybody else's premium goes down. was not toanswer give health and human services the power like they were seeking so they can spend billions of dollars and set up a new federal high-risk pool that they hoped would one day devolve back to the states like reagan said. as the closest thing we have two eternal life, it's a federal program. they just don't go away. i agree with you. we have to pass something, but friday was an arbitrary deadline. host: to that point, there was a piece written in "the hill" newspaper. he is your friend. do not blame trump for health care the heat. blame louie gohmert. he and his piece by saying there is a reason the congressman seldom gain leadership roles
, roles that would thele them to the achieve lofty goals they so ardently cling to while their constituents are drowning in bureaucratic red tape and regulation. libby, do you work for us? or have you developed the paternal attitude that voters are simple folk who do not understand such conflict issues and you have decided what is good for us? i'm just wondering what your reaction is to someone who says is your friend and then saying that government -- guest: he has been helpful to me and helpful to the state of texas. he has been retired for some time. done more than anybody in the state of texas to help reform the judiciary by taking judges around and finding candidates and running them.
to go along and get along. i've heard that encouragement from him over and over. greta, when i got to congress, from every organization elementary and junior high to high school. i was class president at a&m and baylor law school. i won all kinds of awards at my church. to have migrated in leadership roles in every thing i've ever been in. when i got to congress, the first day i thought i will be in leadership here. but early on, i realized i have a choice. i can stand up and say what the people in my party don't want to hear but they need to hear because this country is going to hell in a handbasket. uppeople like me don't stand
, we will continue to have the federal government get bigger , invade people's privacy, take away their decision-making authority more and more, and republicans are supposed to rain that in, but they will keep going along and getting along. oneverybody heeds the advice this issue of dr. coppage, that he and i won't be mentioned in therenals of history, but will be a chapter on how at age along the way, we had a chance to stop bigger government and stop the federal government's decision-making and at each one, people said, let's just do it and go along. object -- assignee shiny object. because it was easier, they went along with the group. at each phase, we continued to slide to the demise of the greatest country in history.
that kind of mentality that he has is what will bring about our demise. so yes, i knew the first time i stood up -- this is unpopular. they are not going to want to hear it. my friend, dan webster from florida, he said you are like our conferences jeremiah. you stand up and tell us what we don't want to hear. we get mad at you. you tell us exactly what's going to happen if we follow this course. we get mad at you and often we got the wrong way you said not to. then it happens just like you said and then we let you out and you tell us again this is not good. i understand. i saw this as the choice robert frost talked about. woodroads diverged in a and i took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the
difference." so yes, i would much rather have people vote for me. i knew announced for speaker i would never get elected for anything because i never take the excuse that we would have to vote for boehner because no one was announced. it was not my idea. that takes away the excuse. then we have a chance to get 29 votes and we can have a compromise that would not be me. i've known all along that i've made the choice to stand up for what i believe in and they have got to hear. our former majority leader used to introduce me as louie gohmert, he is the conscience of our party. he is to introduce that until his conscience bothered him too much with what his conscience was telling him and he quit saying that. i see that as my role. i know that dr. coppage has been
a go along, let's get in charge, and when we are in charge, but this principle is too important. government.d more we don't need more power at health and human services. we do need to bring premium s down. if i followed his advice and voted on friday, premiums would told andyou have been we will lose the majority in 2018. the first thing that would happen is that president trump would bery 2019 politically impeached and a witchhunt. i know the president was unhappy we do not vote for it on friday, but newt gingrich said even obamacare had more than a 17% approval rating. we can get to a bill and dr. coppage can end up being happy and he can do as my friends who condemned to me and were big contributors who went against and voted against the wall
street bailout. isaacs had a great solution. the head of the bank that started a bank in tyler, texas, one of the finest men i knew, grew up in my little town of mount pleasant. just a wise man. he called me and chewed me out for not voting for the wall street bailout. a month later, he saw me in the bank and i figured he was still mad. he said come in my office. he said, i'm sorry. you did the right thing. i should've never jumped on the. you. that meant more to me, but i'm telling you, sometimes when you stand up and do the right thing, whether it's dr. coppage or any of my friends who have helped, i'm sorry. you are wrong on this. i wish i could vote with you, but the country is at stake. if it means i will lose the next election, it won't be me
contributing as you were suggesting to this demise of the country. the go along, get along has got us in trouble. it has got to stop. i'm not going to stop being the conscience as long as i'm allowed to be here. host: congressman, thanks for your expedition. what goes into your thinking and your fellow colleagues on what goes on friday. we appreciate you talking about that. we are going to take a short break. we will open up the phone lines and you can call in and react to the congressman or any other public policy or political debate. there are the phone numbers right there on your screen. before we get to that, we want to show you the article 50. article 50 has been triggered the british prime minister. there is a tweet showing the eu receiving that letter from the prime minister. she drafted it and signed it yesterday. here is theresa may announcg